20 Comments

Intelligent design, [Derbyshire] writes, “is, by the way, not a scientific theory though it may be a metaphysical one.”

Rhetorically punchy, but is it a scientific way to defend a theory—victory by definition?

Excuse us, Witt, but it’s the Discovery Institute that is trying to re-define science to include deities and mysterious alien beings as the explanation for any phenomenon that a small group of cranks finds too extraordinary to believe (or too heretical, according to the cranks’ preachers). Scientists can’t be blamed for responding directly to the arguments made by the charlatans at the Disclaimery Institute for the Promotion of Moonie/Fundamentalist Garbage.

We have to put our theories in empirical harm’s way, and see if they continue to stand when assailed with fresh evidence. It’s called “The Scientific Method.”

But for Derbyshire, Darwinism is the damsel and he will not have her virtue besmirched, will not have her dragged into the dock to be cross-examined, will not have her competing for our affections like a common harlot.

I welcome this dishonest nitWitt to come here to Panda’s Thumb and debate me. I promise not to call him any names during the course of the debate.

All he has to do is explain to me how “ID theory” is science and why we should ignore the view of nearly every single expert in the field that evolution is a rock solid foundational principle of biology. And he has to do that without dissembling or making a claim that is so absurd it is more likely to be a lie than not.

Will he be the first to achieve that feat?

I doubt it. Because (t)Witt is obviously a chicken-hearted rube reading from a script.

I’d almost pay to see that. One of these days the ID crowd is actually going to trot out some research in support of their theory rather than attacking evolution - at which point I’ll faint in shock. Unfortunately, their attacks have been working. At least based on what I’m seeing in Kansas, Missouri, and most recently Alabama (House Bill 352 and Senate Bill 240 - both recently introduced). I guess the great thing about not actually having a theory or evidence is that it makes it hard to land a counterattack.

Good grief PZ, a quick look shows Pharyngula running away with the best expert blog award. If PT wins as well, we’re not going to let you keep both trophies on your mantle, you’ll have to relinquish the second one.

I don’t think Derbyshire likes to have his cherished opinions knocked down at all. Most of us don’t. So we have to fight our tendency to guard our pet scientific theories from contrary evidence. We have to put our theories in empirical harm’s way, and see if they continue to stand when assailed with fresh evidence. It’s called “The Scientific Method.”

Yeah, we avoid the political comments, mostly, at PT. Strangely enough, though, the right wing has moved so far to the extreme in the US that even taking a neutral and sensible position that “Hey, gang! We ought to practice and teach good science!” has become a left-wing stance in comparison.

I voted and all, for PT and PZ, but I forgot why. Does this matter in some tangible way?

The point, as far as I can see it, of this or any other blog or website is to advance a position by exposing people to information. I like the notion that Kofax was a ball player, and also that he was a “lefty.” I like baseball- my wife’s masters thesis was about baseball and being an American (and learning to read English, + other things).

I’m as lefty as the next guy…but why is defending science against theistic attacks considered “lefty” and hence worthy of a Koufax?

These attacks are one element of an attempt to impose theism – in fact, theocracy – on all aspects of society. Specifically, the attempt to introduce ID into public schools is an attempt to bypass the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. These “theistic” attacks are not politically neutral – they are promoted and funded by right wing theists, not theists at large, who (so far) generally oppose them.

These “theistic” attacks are not politically neutral — they are promoted and funded by right wing theists, not theists at large, who (so far) generally oppose them.

I guess so, but if someone were to, say, try and rehabilitate Mao’s image (don’t laugh–I remember a bookstore in Berkeley that had a large sign that read “Down with phony communism! Up with real communism! Mao more than ever!” in their window during the collapse of the Soviet Union), the response wouldn’t be “right-wing”, it would be “everone but a particular group of nutcases on the fringe left.” I’m just lamenting the excessive polarization of discourse, where everyone not advocating theocratic neo-fascism is considered “left-wing.” *sigh*

I’m all for criticizing IDists, but “nitWitt” and similar childish tactics aren’t going to impress anyone …

I’m quite certain that Witt knows about this blog and he likely read my comment. Witt was the only person I was interested in “impressing.” I assume he got the message but, as anyone could have predicted, he has not dared to creep out into the sunlight.

I don’t blame Witt for hiding behind the choir boys whose soft minds he habitually inoculates with his repugnant distortions. I would do the same if I was as dishonest and afraid as he obviously is. Chicken-hearted men like Witt know better than to set their oily half-baked arguments anywhere near the crucible.